Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8883076" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree that consideration flows in both directions.But a licence does not need consideration in both directions. I can invite a friend into my home, thus granting them a licence to be on my property, without them having to pay me. Of course a gratuitous licence is almost always going to be revocable at will - eg I can insist that my friend leave at any time.The OGL is, in my view, not a gratuitous licence however.Section 9 authorises a licensee under the OGL v 1.0a to pick and choose among versions of the licence when exercising the rights the OGL grants them in respect of OGC.It doesn't (in my view) give WotC any unilateral power to rescind/revoke a licence that it has granted.That is why I think that the likeliest scenario is that v 1.1 contains a provision similar to that found in one of the GSL iterations - whereby parties to 1.1 agree to give up their rights under v 1.0a.If you don't become a party to v 1.1 you will not have given up those rights. And as I said, I'm of the view that WotC lacks the legal power to unilaterally withdraw them. But I'm not an expert on US contract and licensing law, so my view is necessarily tentative and subject to revision (i) in the face of more expert opinion, and (ii) in the face of more information about what WotC is claiming.</blockquote>